Jeremy Corbyn typifies the contemporary Left. He is, if you like, the SJW's grandad. Born into an affluent middle-class family, he pretends to be the voice of the working class, like so many of his Leftist contemporaries: Ken Loach, whose premiere of I, Daniel Blake Corbyn attended, is a prime example. Of course, when these people put their fists in the air and shout about the working class, they invariably deconstruct the White working class of Great Britain, and Loach's aforementioned film, which Corbyn lauded, is a prime example, although that is for another article. The White working classes are 'soooo yesterday' and these people have moved on to the minority groups displacing and abusing Britain's indigenous working class. Unfortunately, those same native workers—and voters—seem largely not to have noticed.
Corbyn is an interesting case study: over the past few months, he seems to have been developing himself into a British Bernie Sanders. Far from being deluded in his rhetoric that often suggests he actually won the General Election, he is pushing an idea—the idea that the democratic vote only matters when the extreme Left wins. It is an idea that has been pushed by SJWs on university campuses all over the Western World. And make no mistake, his election campaign, which saw the Labour Party resurgent, was aimed at young SJWs and their pet ethnic minorities. Unlike former party leaders, Corbyn has been quick to get up to speed with Leftist youth culture, which is why Labour was quick on the draw in the battle of memes and why he has now taken to the stage to speak at Glastonbury.
Glastonbury is the event to be seen at for young middle-class SJWs and hipsters, and Corbyn knows it. Sargon of Akkad has done a video on Corbyn and his speech in which he dismisses both Corbyn's speech and Glastonbury, mocking both as lowbrow and aggrandising himself in the process as a liberal intellectual and alternative Reading Festival attendee. It is typical of Sargon's superficiality dressed up as intellectualism. Yes, the speech was basically an unstructured rant, into which Corbyn haphazardly threw in every politically correct agenda of the contemporary extreme Left. Ethnic minorities? Check. Immigrants? Check. LGBTJQ+? Check. Feminism? Check. Inequality? Check. Poverty? Check. Grenfell Tower? Check. And so on. (Speaking of poverty, Corbyn's family home where he grew up is pictured below.)
Yet what Sargon does not realise is that this jumble of PC words is deliberate; this is exactly what the audience wants. They want style without substance; that is why they are at the Glastonbury Festival to begin with. Corbyn's speech sounds as though it was written by a Junior Communist from the lower sixth form because that is exactly to whom he is appealing. And when I say lower sixth form, there is no difference in maturity these days between a sixteen-year-old college student and a twenty-one year old university graduate. The facts that Sargon has corrected him on, like on the Suffragettes, do not matter to these people. However, Sargon is completely incorrect about revolutions. The French Revolution was led by the same bourgeois clique as the Russian one, but I doubt Sargon would ever address that. In fact, in both revolutions the conservative working class was rounded upon, as happened in the Vendee after the French Revolution and the Ukraine after the Russian.
And here is the point: it is always the Corbyns that egg on the soldiers and thugs in jackbooting the proletariat. One remembers how quickly Leon Trotsky went from nerdy theorist to head of the Red Army, from ostensible democrat in the 'Social Democratic' Parties of Europe to revolutionary psychopath who ordered retreating soldiers shot during the Russian Civil War. Make no mistake, Corbyn is cut from the same cloth. Sargon recognises Corbyn's dictatorial streak, his willingness to tell everyone what they should be aspiring to and doing with their lives, but Sargon treats this as a bit of a joke; and this is the problem with classical liberals and conservatives: they have always laughed off the nonsenses of the extreme Left—even as the Left has almost gained hegemony over our culture. They have laughed at them, allowed them a platform, tried to make peace with them, seen their point of view, and ultimately given in to them. And that is one of the major reasons the likes of Sargon and, for that matter, Theresa May are mere talking heads.
The other reason is that for which Sargon constantly berates Corbyn: collectivism. Sargon's assertion that a society is made up of individuals is as silly as Corbyn's globalist utopian fantasies—and for largely the same reason. By collectivism, Sargon is referring to a cohesive group identity, yet one needs a cohesive group identity to form a society. Atomised individuals out for their own gain are not conducive to a cohesive society; there has to be a common bond whereby people work for the good of the group. The likes of Sargon cannot stand against, nor even begin to understand, something like Islam or Communism precisely because of his commitment to the failed doctrine of Whiggery. Corbyn understands this all too well, and one notes his enthusiam for Islam as much as for Communism. Communism and Islam have their similarities: both are doctrinaire, authoritarian and work towards the destruction of the West in a traditional sense.
Both are also used where there is no natural cohesion between peoples, as they stamp on the natural instincts of man to bond with those who look, think and act in a similar way, by using ideological authoritarianism and terrorism on the masses, as it is only in this way that a cohesive society of diverse peoples can be maintained. This is the real reason for mass immigration into the West. A multi-ethnic society created by mass immigration will justify one, the other, or a mixture of these doctrines. This is what contemporary Whigs like Sargon fail to understand, and in their failure to address group dynamics, as individualists, they cannot possibly stand against collectivists, because a group will always beat individuals in a fight. And this is what it will come down to.
The only solution to this is racialism, whereby one has an organic collective, as opposed to the inorganic one imposed by Islam and Communism. This does not deny individualism, for one can be an individual as part of a group in an organic society. Indeed, the group gives the individual context for his individuality. As long as the individual thinks of both his own gain and that of the group without contradiction, both the individual and the group stand to benefit. If the individual's actions are to the detriment of the group, then the group will be weakened and potentially fall prey to other hostile collectives. This is precisely what Whiggery has brought about.
Indeed, it was interesting that Corbyn's herald was the founder and organiser of the Glastonbury Festival himself, Michael Eavis (top photo, right of Corbyn), a Methodist. Methodists had always been influential in politics, and supported the Whig/Liberal Party en masse in the late nineteenth century and, in doing so, opened their doors to socialism, as the Liberals became ever more 'progressive', the Methodists now rubbing shoulders with the Radicals. Eavis' welcoming Corbyn on stage, then, had a certain symbolism to it. Liberals have always been the gatekeepers to Communism, with their and Sargon's hero John Stuart Mill even suggesting that Communism might yet be the best form of society in his Chapters on Socialism.
The fact is that unless the political scene radically alters, Jeremy Corbyn will win the next General Election. In his mind, he has already won it. The liberalism of the contemporary Conservative Party and even UKIP (if that party manages to get its act together) cannot combat the extremism of the far Left and Islam. Between this election and next, the Radical Right has to organise and mobilise. Memes are great for attracting the younger generation online, but there has to be more in terms of real activism. This does not just mean in pure politics, but also in the cultural struggle (particularly music—watch this space), in charity work and in environmentalism. In these, we challenge the very morality of the Left—and it is easy to do so, for this was the state of the site where the Glastonbury Festival was held the day after:
Remember: the opposite of RIGHT is both LEFT and WRONG.
Corbyn is an interesting case study: over the past few months, he seems to have been developing himself into a British Bernie Sanders. Far from being deluded in his rhetoric that often suggests he actually won the General Election, he is pushing an idea—the idea that the democratic vote only matters when the extreme Left wins. It is an idea that has been pushed by SJWs on university campuses all over the Western World. And make no mistake, his election campaign, which saw the Labour Party resurgent, was aimed at young SJWs and their pet ethnic minorities. Unlike former party leaders, Corbyn has been quick to get up to speed with Leftist youth culture, which is why Labour was quick on the draw in the battle of memes and why he has now taken to the stage to speak at Glastonbury.
Glastonbury is the event to be seen at for young middle-class SJWs and hipsters, and Corbyn knows it. Sargon of Akkad has done a video on Corbyn and his speech in which he dismisses both Corbyn's speech and Glastonbury, mocking both as lowbrow and aggrandising himself in the process as a liberal intellectual and alternative Reading Festival attendee. It is typical of Sargon's superficiality dressed up as intellectualism. Yes, the speech was basically an unstructured rant, into which Corbyn haphazardly threw in every politically correct agenda of the contemporary extreme Left. Ethnic minorities? Check. Immigrants? Check. LGBTJQ+? Check. Feminism? Check. Inequality? Check. Poverty? Check. Grenfell Tower? Check. And so on. (Speaking of poverty, Corbyn's family home where he grew up is pictured below.)
Yet what Sargon does not realise is that this jumble of PC words is deliberate; this is exactly what the audience wants. They want style without substance; that is why they are at the Glastonbury Festival to begin with. Corbyn's speech sounds as though it was written by a Junior Communist from the lower sixth form because that is exactly to whom he is appealing. And when I say lower sixth form, there is no difference in maturity these days between a sixteen-year-old college student and a twenty-one year old university graduate. The facts that Sargon has corrected him on, like on the Suffragettes, do not matter to these people. However, Sargon is completely incorrect about revolutions. The French Revolution was led by the same bourgeois clique as the Russian one, but I doubt Sargon would ever address that. In fact, in both revolutions the conservative working class was rounded upon, as happened in the Vendee after the French Revolution and the Ukraine after the Russian.
And here is the point: it is always the Corbyns that egg on the soldiers and thugs in jackbooting the proletariat. One remembers how quickly Leon Trotsky went from nerdy theorist to head of the Red Army, from ostensible democrat in the 'Social Democratic' Parties of Europe to revolutionary psychopath who ordered retreating soldiers shot during the Russian Civil War. Make no mistake, Corbyn is cut from the same cloth. Sargon recognises Corbyn's dictatorial streak, his willingness to tell everyone what they should be aspiring to and doing with their lives, but Sargon treats this as a bit of a joke; and this is the problem with classical liberals and conservatives: they have always laughed off the nonsenses of the extreme Left—even as the Left has almost gained hegemony over our culture. They have laughed at them, allowed them a platform, tried to make peace with them, seen their point of view, and ultimately given in to them. And that is one of the major reasons the likes of Sargon and, for that matter, Theresa May are mere talking heads.
The other reason is that for which Sargon constantly berates Corbyn: collectivism. Sargon's assertion that a society is made up of individuals is as silly as Corbyn's globalist utopian fantasies—and for largely the same reason. By collectivism, Sargon is referring to a cohesive group identity, yet one needs a cohesive group identity to form a society. Atomised individuals out for their own gain are not conducive to a cohesive society; there has to be a common bond whereby people work for the good of the group. The likes of Sargon cannot stand against, nor even begin to understand, something like Islam or Communism precisely because of his commitment to the failed doctrine of Whiggery. Corbyn understands this all too well, and one notes his enthusiam for Islam as much as for Communism. Communism and Islam have their similarities: both are doctrinaire, authoritarian and work towards the destruction of the West in a traditional sense.
Both are also used where there is no natural cohesion between peoples, as they stamp on the natural instincts of man to bond with those who look, think and act in a similar way, by using ideological authoritarianism and terrorism on the masses, as it is only in this way that a cohesive society of diverse peoples can be maintained. This is the real reason for mass immigration into the West. A multi-ethnic society created by mass immigration will justify one, the other, or a mixture of these doctrines. This is what contemporary Whigs like Sargon fail to understand, and in their failure to address group dynamics, as individualists, they cannot possibly stand against collectivists, because a group will always beat individuals in a fight. And this is what it will come down to.
The only solution to this is racialism, whereby one has an organic collective, as opposed to the inorganic one imposed by Islam and Communism. This does not deny individualism, for one can be an individual as part of a group in an organic society. Indeed, the group gives the individual context for his individuality. As long as the individual thinks of both his own gain and that of the group without contradiction, both the individual and the group stand to benefit. If the individual's actions are to the detriment of the group, then the group will be weakened and potentially fall prey to other hostile collectives. This is precisely what Whiggery has brought about.
Indeed, it was interesting that Corbyn's herald was the founder and organiser of the Glastonbury Festival himself, Michael Eavis (top photo, right of Corbyn), a Methodist. Methodists had always been influential in politics, and supported the Whig/Liberal Party en masse in the late nineteenth century and, in doing so, opened their doors to socialism, as the Liberals became ever more 'progressive', the Methodists now rubbing shoulders with the Radicals. Eavis' welcoming Corbyn on stage, then, had a certain symbolism to it. Liberals have always been the gatekeepers to Communism, with their and Sargon's hero John Stuart Mill even suggesting that Communism might yet be the best form of society in his Chapters on Socialism.
The fact is that unless the political scene radically alters, Jeremy Corbyn will win the next General Election. In his mind, he has already won it. The liberalism of the contemporary Conservative Party and even UKIP (if that party manages to get its act together) cannot combat the extremism of the far Left and Islam. Between this election and next, the Radical Right has to organise and mobilise. Memes are great for attracting the younger generation online, but there has to be more in terms of real activism. This does not just mean in pure politics, but also in the cultural struggle (particularly music—watch this space), in charity work and in environmentalism. In these, we challenge the very morality of the Left—and it is easy to do so, for this was the state of the site where the Glastonbury Festival was held the day after:
Remember: the opposite of RIGHT is both LEFT and WRONG.
Also published at Mjolnir Magazine
